Ted Olson's Report of Phone Calls from Barbara Olson on 9/11: Three Official Denials

by David Ray Griffin
Global Research, April 1, 2008

Late in the day on 9/11, CNN put out a story that began: “Barbara Olson, a conservative commentator and attorney, alerted her husband, Solicitor General Ted Olson, that the plane she was on was being hijacked Tuesday morning, Ted Olson told CNN.” According to this story, Olson reported that his wife had “called him twice on a cell phone from American Airlines Flight 77,” saying that “all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers. The only weapons she mentioned were knives and cardboard cutters.”2

Ted Olson’s report was very important. It provided the only evidence that American 77, which was said to have struck the Pentagon, had still been aloft after it had disappeared from FAA radar around 9:00 AM (there had been reports, after this disappearance, that an airliner had crashed on the Ohio-Kentucky border). Also, Barbara Olson had been a very well-known commentator on CNN. The report that she died in a plane that had been hijacked by Arab Muslims was an important factor in getting the nation’s support for the Bush administration’s “war on terror.” Ted Olson’s report was important in still another way, being the sole source of the widely accepted idea that the hijackers had box cutters.3

However, although Ted Olson’s report of phone calls from his wife has been a central pillar of the official account of 9/11, this report has been completely undermined.


DRG discussed this last night

Larry King "talks" with Ted Olson about the phone calls.

I came across a good "discussion" with Ted Olson on Larry King Live:

"9/11: Did Barbara Olson really call Ted Olson on 9/11? "Discussion" with Larry King."

(It puts a lot of this in perfect perspective.)


Since a missile, drone, and/or pre-planted explosives blew-up

the Pentagon, NOT AA-77, why would Barbara Olson be calling Ted & telling him anything, including that Arab maniacs had hijacked the airliner?

Consider mass emailing truth messages. More info here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/13321

Where Did She Go?

Did Barbara have a scheduled face lift but landed somewhere in Europe and instead opted for facial reconstruction? Or, she may have wanted a divorce and is now living in Rome with a wig on.

Was a rumor floating around

Was a rumor floating around once that she was
arrested in Germany.

Were there any marriage problems between her and her husband ?

Were there any marriage problems between her and her husband ? Was it the preplaned 911 attacks the occasion for her husband to get rid of her ?

Have often thought that she and John O'Neil were perhaps killed elsewhere than the WTC but their disappearance was put on the 911 attacks.

Were their bodies scientifically identified by ADN for exemple ? However even they were identified it does not prove that they died where the gouvernment says.

Griffin's voice morphing

"Either he lied or he was duped by someone using voice-morphing technology to pretend to be his wife."

voice-morphing? Anyone can invent bogus stories about phone calls, but suggesting voice-morphing just doesn't seem remotely plausible to me.

I like Griffin's work very much, but no one is above criticism as long as its done in a constructive way. We don't need to speculate about voice-morphing unless there is actually some compelling evidence (i.e. not wild speculation) that it was used. The facts about 9/11 speak for themselves, there is no need to muddy the waters with unprovable theories.

One successful way to manage a cover-up is to have a lot of conspiracy theories going around, when the (conspiracy) facts are enough to hang people for treason.

But hey, what do I know? Perhaps I should quote Mr. Griffin himself:

"Do you have a personal theory of what really happened on Sept. 11?

No, and I made a big point of not developing such a theory, and even encouraging members of the movement not to do this, because insofar as there are antagonisms and disputes within the movement, they're related primarily to those things, where people say, well, here's what hit the Pentagon, and others say that's not true. I put my focus on evidence that the official story is false, and that evidence is so abundant and overwhelming, to make the case you don't have to prove what really happened and who did it and so on. It's like if you had a murder trial, and Jones is accused of murder. The defense attorneys can prove that Jones didn't do it without having a theory about who really did. All you have to do is a good alibi and lack of evidence and so on. Likewise, we can show that there is no evidence that al Quaeda did it, there's no way they could have done it, when you look at the details-for example, bringing the buildings straight down at virtual freefall speed. There is a sketch of a theory, that it was an inside job, that explosives were used in the buildings. But what kind of explosives exactly? When they were they put in there? How many were there? All those things some people want to get into. Or the critics say, you've got to have a theory. No, you don't have to have a theory. When you develop a theory, that's what the debunkers love, they want to say, that's nonsense and take attention away from all the evidence we have marshaled to show the official story is false."
Arabesque: 911 Truth

You don't doubt that voice-morphing technology exists,

just question the wisdom of putting it out there when we have no evidence that it was used on 9/11/01, yes?

I would think that a few of the calls were recorded and there have to be records of all the calls made. This would narrow it down to the actual calls made and by examining who was calling whom one could plausibly infer that either voice-morphing was used or that the receiving party was lying.

I think that many people get bored of waiting for the big breakthrough and pick at minutiae.

The solution is to invest your energy and creativity in finding new ways to spread the very solid evidence we already have.

Will we see you in SF on May 11?


The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

"You believe me,don't you ?

"Mom, this is Mark Bingham, you believe me, don't you?" ...
Yeah, I talk to my mom like that all the time .

"Listen carefully now : DO NOT DESTROY OIL-WELLS" Dubya

'Then Beamer asked her to pray with him.'

You're in the middle of a hijacking and the plane is rocking and rolling, yet you've got time to chat with the telephone operator, say the Our Father and recite the 23rd Psalm, while at the same time that you're planning to take over the cockpit.


Jefferson could hear shouts and commotion and then Beamer asked her to pray with him. They recited the 23rd Psalm.

He got Jefferson to promise that she would call his family, then dropped the phone, leaving the line open.

That's when Jefferson heard what Lisa Beamer believes were her husband's last words: "Let's roll."



As Newsweek relates, "Beamer kept a Lord's
Prayer bookmark in his Tom Clancy novel, but he didn't need any prompting. He began to recite the ancient litany, and Jefferson joined him: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name."

As they finished, Beamer added, "Jesus, help me." And then, Beamer and his fellow passengers prayed a prayer that has comforted millions down through the
centuries -- the prayer that David wrote in a time of
great anguish: The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not
want . . . Yea, though I walk through the valley of
the shadow of death, I will fear no evil.

And then the famous last words: "Are you guys ready? Let's roll."


Oh did I mention, Todd Beamer was an evangelical christian.

It lays everything out clearly including "VOICE MORPHING."

This spot on Larry King with Ted Olson. It lays everything out clearly including "voice morphing."

"9/11: Did Barbara Olson really call Ted Olson on 9/11? "Discussion" with Larry King."

(It puts a lot of this in perfect perspective.)(read until the end.)


In the spirit of constructive criticism.

This is not the Pentagon issue, this is an (nearly) open & shut case. The cell phone calls, that are key in the implication of 'radical jihadis', never happened. It's only logical to assume the recipients of the calls are either lying or were duped. Sorry if the debunkers can't handle reality, open minded (non-cointel operatives) truth seekers will form this conclusion on their own. I did, & long before we had the proof. (Because the technology wouldn't, as we now know, allow it.)